memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Template:Watch online
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete " ". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale As pointed out by Morder, we already have a Where to watch page for this information. As it is likely every episode will likely be online in the future, it is unnecessary to post it on every page.--31dot 01:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Discussion *'Delete': on top of which if different methods are added for watching it elsewhere what template would cover that? As well as we might need different templates for each series and so forth. — Morder 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC) *'Keep': The reason I created this template is that each episode has a specific key on the CBS website. This allows each episode's own page to actually point to the place where that episode may be viewed (legally) in its entirety, as opposed to someone having to go to the "where to view" link, then having to fish through the list of all the episodes to find that particular one. The key for the episode as used on CBS' website has two values and otherwise the website reference is identical. This allows simply supplying the two values (and the name of the episode for the display) and the template does the rest. It makes it less likely the value is copied in error and allows for a specification on the page. :This way, if the way it is referenced or explained changes, only the template has to be changed instead of changing circa 50 or more different pages. This makes maintenance easier. Otherwise, if you want to delete it, then it means that the page would have to be hard coded with each individual link. : Also, you don't know that it is the case that eventually every episode will be on line. CBS has decided to do this for TOS; it is not necessarily the case that any of the other series would necessarily become available, or available on-line from CBS' website. They might or might not be available, and if they are, it might be from someone else. On the other hand, if you want it to indicate it's for TOS as opposed to others, that's a different matter. But then it might require some wiki magic or coding to test which series it is for and create a specialized link. Rfc1394 02:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC) : I will put a dummy parameter series= which won't be used for anything and code it with 'TOS' on each (current) entry, so that if, in the future, the other series are on-line, we can just do a test on which value for series= and add parameters as needed then. Rfc1394 02:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC) : Also, whoever is editing the template, please don't take out the 'name=' parameter; that's a check against error. Whoever puts in the link might copy a prior template. The name= field is to remind whoever is copying it to make sure they change the cid= and pid= parameters since the 'name=' value has to be changed as well. Rfc1394 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC) *'Keep'. This isn't some fansite link, this is an official place from CBS on where to view these episodes online, free of charge. I can think of absolutely no better place to put this than in the episode articles. So what if every episode of Star Trek eventually gets online? That just means a link in every episode summary article. I can see that only as a good thing, not a bad thing. We most likely won't need a different template for each series, just play around with the code to recognize different series and act accordingly. Even if that was the deciding factor, then that would make this not a deletion discussion, but a function one, in which case we should still vote "keep." --OuroborosCobra talk 02:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC) *'Keep' – OC is absolutely right.– Cleanse 02:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC) **Regarding that this isn't a fansite link. My issue is really with the name of the template and its structure. First off this is a US centric link only which means we would have to have a different template for each other country that might show it or suppose that a deal is made with spike for TNG episodes and so forth - hence it would be better to have something like (stupid name i know) or something different of course. — Morder 02:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ***Then you shouldn't be voting to delete. Your problem isn't with the existence of the template. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC) * It's a poorly named template. I can see its value and use though. It's also not done in the format style of MA. I've changed that. It should slot into the "video and DVD releases" section really too. Since... it's a video release. I still dislike that CBS limits this crap to the US only, but hey, what can you really do? -- sulfur 03:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC) * I have two points: first, I wanted something simple for an indication of where to watch it online, so I picked that name. I picked a simple name 'view online'; there is currently only one place and it's only available in the U.S. You have a better idea for a name, fine. Rfc1394 04:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC) * Seoond, since it's an external link, the only place it seemed to fit was under, well, duh, you guess where I put it. :) Rfc1394 04:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC) * I also agree with OC; (31dot/mordor)'s problem is not that he/they thinks the template should be deleted or that it necessarily is unnecessary; his/their problem is (t)he(y) dislike(s) the way I designed it or the format that I used. That's an entirely different matter than a delete request and should have been done in a differerent manner, e.g. by (in part what was done): to ask for a hold on more adds to the pages and using the discussion on the template's discussion page. Rfc1394 04:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) * In view of Sulfur temporarily banning me because he wanted the issue resolved first, I will for the duration of the discussion not edit this template (except its discussion page) or the template's reference on pages. Rfc1394 05:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC) * Item Next: Sulfur says the name sucks ("poorly named template"); what do you dislike about it and why? It seems to be in compliance with the manual of style. The manual of style refers to "naming conventions" which says: **Lowercase second and subsequent words ** Use singular nouns **Use common names. Use the most common name of the subject that does not conflict with the names of other articles. **Be precise. * This seems to fit all of the standards, what name would you have used that does the same job and complies with all the above rules? Rfc1394 05:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC) * Item three: presumably the 'delete' will be voted down; I've struck a nerve to some extent that it's clear that this is useful, what will probably happen is one or both of the following; first that a "better name" might be picked (the idea I had was one I have regularly used when on Wikipedia; simple and obvious is better). The second is, for whatever the template is called, what parameters should be on it. Rfc1394 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ** For this particular incarnation, the cid=/pid= values, being the ones that change, I don't think anyone has a problem with. Does anyone disagree on that point? Rfc1394 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ** I had stated I would have a name= parameter; this is a check against error or laziness since if someone copies the template from another entry, if they don't correct the pid/cid values the name will also be wrong (it presumes if they change anything they'll change all three). It also allows the name to show up in the link. Anyone disagree on this parameter? Rfc1394 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ** I had also stated I'd include use of a 'dummy' parameter series=TOS so that if any of the other series become available online the series parameter can be used as a switch so that it can route to the correct reference, and thus use the correct parameters for that reference. Anyone disagree on this parameter? Rfc1394 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ** Anyone consider anything else they'd want to put into it or change? Rfc1394 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ::Regarding Item Next: Where's the "singular noun" in "View online"? And is "View online" "precise" if it excludes people from precisely 99.2% of the world's countries? I'm just saying. I don't have a problem with the name, myself. Nevertheless I'm on your side regarding "what name would you have used that does the same job and complies with all the above rules?" ::Regarding the ban: I don't think you should be banned from working on the template, and I don't think that working on the template is what got you banned. The prudent, considerate, low-impact thing to do would have been to stop adding the template to episode pages until it was clear that you had the support of the community. the only thing that was clear at the time you were banned was that such support was quite greatly in doubt, based on reactions up to that time.--TribbleFurSuit 06:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC) :::I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say this is excluding "99.2%" of countries. This is the English language Memory Alpha, not the Russian one. The link isn't being put on Japanese pages. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC) :::Ah so. :) Rfc1394 23:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ::It's no exaggeration. It's got nothing to do with MA/notenglish. If a visitor to MA/en is in any one of 99.2% of the world's countries, that visitor won't find that the "Watch online" link is useable. The idea of whether such people may or may not be likely to visit MA/en does not change the precision of what "Watch online" would mean to them. --TribbleFurSuit 06:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC) :::If a visitor is in Peru, they aren't likely to find that link usable for the fact that they don't speak the language in the video, or read the language of the website the link is on for that matter. The people looking at the article represent a far smaller percentage of the world than the total of those the link does not work for. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC) *'Keep', unless/until it becomes crystal clear that it's not possible to mitigate the concerns raised. I support the idea of treating this like either a "Video/DVD release" or a "Where to watch" rather than an External Link, because of that site's geography-specific nature. A link that most people can't use is not appropriate for that section. In. my. opinion. And, since episode articles don't include "Where to watch", then the remaining option under which a template would be useful is Video/DVD releases. As long as we're on the subject, there ought to be templates for DVD releases! Like --TribbleFurSuit 06:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ::::I concede to the arguments provided in favor, though I did believe at the time the template to be unneccesary. I had a second of my idea, which is why I made this suggestion. My thought was that since the episodes will likely be on the Internet for all eternity it was unneccesary to link to each individual episode from each episode page. A DVD/video release is different to me because there are several versions and they are not all in one central area such as the Internet. ::::All that aside, I can now understand noting an online release, perhaps with the date it was made available, but I still question whether it is necessary to link to the specific episode.--31dot 19:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ::That's cool, Dotty. Regarding "My thought was that ''... it was unneccesary to link to each individual episode from each episode page", hm. There are fan wikis for "shows" which are exclusively online, like hrwiki.org, and there are wikis for shows which have works in other media besides television, including webisodes or web-delivered comics, and which shows even deliver the television content on the internet too, like heroeswiki.org. Over there, articles about web-delivered canon works link directly to that work on the official website. The idea to not link an article for a particular piece of work to the actual piece of work itself as delivered on the web by the official "broadcaster" would be a big huh? 'Course, we don't have to do what anybody else on the web does. --TribbleFurSuit 22:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC) :Reply 31Dot: Okay, here's the question: Why not? Humor me for a moment; presume the vast majority of the people visiting this website are in the U.S. (Maybe that's wrong, but as I said, humor me for a moment.) So someone visiting it looks up an episode. He sees a link mentioning where you can actually view the episode on-line. Which do you think he's going to expect; a page where he can then go and fish for the particular episode, or would he be expecting to land on it. And then, more likely I suspect, (s)he's going to think, "Gee, you'd think the guy could have linked to the episode directly." Rfc1394 23:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ::::Dotty....hmmm, not bad. :) As I said, I'm convinced, I simply wished to clarify my POV. The specifics can be worked on.--31dot 23:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Admin resolution * '''Kept' for the time being. If they become available from elsewhere, we can revisit the nomenclature then. -- sulfur 23:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)